INDIFFERENTISM. – Etymologically, it signifies the failure to make any distinction between a thing and its opposite, the refusal to take a stand on either side. Here, however, it is considered in a special way within the theological sphere, under the religious aspect, and it is the psychological attitude of one who makes no distinction among different alternatives concerning religion.
OUTLINE:
I. Concepts
II. Absolute I
III. Relative I
IV. State Indifferentism.
I. Concepts
Religious indifferentism is first of all distinguished into practical and theoretical or speculative. Practical indifferentism is that of one who knows the truth of religion but does not observe its duties; it is the attitude of one who has faith and appreciates spiritual values but directs his life solely toward material well-being, as if faith and spiritual values did not exist. In this indifferentism there is belief in the divinity of Catholicism, but between this belief and the practical conduct of life there exists a deplorable contradiction, which may be explained, but not justified, by the seduction of pleasure, the tumult of business, thoughtlessness, human respect, and other causes. Everyone easily understands how illogical, incoherent, and impious this form of indifferentism is. Theoretical or speculative indifferentism generally designates both the opinion of one who considers it a matter of indifference to have or not have a religion, and the opinion of one who considers it necessary to have a religion but thinks it a matter of indifference to practice this or that one. Leo XIII, in the encyclical *Libertas* (20 June 1888), has briefly and clearly defined it as “the doctrinal system which teaches that each person is free to profess the religion he pleases or even to profess none at all.” Thus, as is evident from the definition, there are two kinds of speculative indifferentism: absolute and relative.II. ABSOLUTE INDIFFERENTISM
It denies the necessity of any religion, not only positive but also natural, and therefore claims that it is a matter of indifference to have or not have a religion.It is the error of those who, while admitting the existence of God, arrogate to themselves the right not to render Him any homage. God, they affirm, does not care about the world and men, and has no need of their homage. Religion, therefore, is an indifferent and useless thing; it is rather a flower that blooms from man’s fervid and exuberant imagination than a fruit, ripe and lasting, of human reason. Although religion was once necessary for man and even today is for some, more sentimental souls, a useful element and a stimulus in life, in itself it stands opposed to scientific progress. It can only serve when, guided by science, it presents itself as a symbolic conception of the Absolute, whose existence cannot be demonstrated; it also serves as a luxury and an ornament for certain souls inclined to mysticism.
Absolute indifferentism is practically irreligious and easily leads to a struggle against religion. Its adherents therefore often take the names of atheists, unbelievers, irreligious persons, or freethinkers. Its falsity is a direct corollary of the necessity and obligation for man of religion (v.). For if the existence of God is admitted, it is perfectly clear that it is monstrous to refuse every acknowledgment of His immense goodness, every homage to His infinite majesty, every glorification and every love of His supreme lovableness, especially since, God being the eternal, infinite Being, the principle of man, He is necessarily also man’s supreme end and his only beatitude. Absolute indifferentism is condemned in the third proposition of the Syllabus of Pius IX (Denz.-U., 1703).
III. RELATIVE INDIFFERENTISM
Also called “latitudinarianism,” it recognizes the necessity of religion, the right of God to be honored, but maintains that all religions are good, because they are all different phases of a progressive movement of spiritualization within humanity, and that all equally honor God and can render man happy here below and procure for him eternal salvation.Each individual, therefore, has full freedom to follow any religion, the religion of his country and of his ancestors, the religion that best suits his tastes. God accepts homage from whatever source it comes. The essential thing is to honor God, benefit one’s neighbor, and practice morality. This system is not indifferent with regard to religion, but it is indifferent with regard to the different forms of religion, and is therefore called relative.
In interpreting this system, one must note a certain gradation, which gives rise to a threefold category of its adherents.
1. Those who recognize only natural religion (Jules Simon) and exclude every positive religion. They are not, however, agreed in establishing the essential duties of natural religion, whether, for example, they should admit the utility of prayer and the practice of external worship.
2. Those who recognize positive religions, but among them, for example, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, affirm that each person is free to choose the one that best corresponds to his aspirations. They then seek in various ways to justify this assertion. The modernists, in fact, maintain, more or less openly, that every religion is true on the basis of religious sentiment, in which they place religion itself, and which is substantially identical and common to all religions. Others, instead, base their argument on the supposition that truth is relative and therefore changeable, and thus conclude that every religion is good because it corresponds to the state of a given epoch and to the conditions of a given people. Still others grant that, objectively considered, the religions are not all equally true, that a false religion should not be equated with the true religion, nor should it receive the same adherence and esteem; but they think that practically their authority is equal, because no one can with certainty distinguish the truth of one from the falsity of another.
3. Those who follow Christian indifferentism. Only Christianity, they say, is the true and necessary religion. But since there exist several Christian Churches, each person may freely belong to the one he prefers and considers better. The Catholic Church, therefore, has the same value as the other Churches, and it is not at all necessary to belong to it in order to obtain eternal salvation. The idea of the union of all Christian Churches around the essential points of the doctrines taught by Jesus Christ is therefore cherished and promoted, especially by the Church established in England.
Relative indifferentism is untenable in any of its branches and from any point of view. God has revealed to man one religion, with the obligation for man to receive and practice it through certain acts of worship. It is therefore not permissible for man to reconstruct this religion that has come from God, in order to have the satisfaction of inventing another to his fancy and of honoring God with other acts of worship. Jesus Christ founded a Church, with unity of doctrine and constitution, an infallible Church, which cannot compromise on even a single point of its divine teaching, nor admit any doctrinal concession, and to which it is necessary to belong in order to be saved (v. CHURCH). It is therefore not permitted to man to choose other Churches, in which there are grave doctrinal disagreements in contrast with Catholic truth. Since every compromise between truth and error, between good and evil, is impossible, and since the full religious truth is found only in the Catholic Church, every form of relative indifferentism must be rejected by every logical mind and every upright heart.
The Church’s judgment regarding religious indifferentism is expressed in several papal documents. Pius IX condemned it in the encyclical *Qui pluribus* (9 Nov. 1846: Denz.-U., nn. 1634–1635) and in the encyclical *Singulari quidem* (17 Mar. 1856: ibid., n. 1646). Similarly, the following propositions are condemned in the *Syllabus*:
“Each man is free to embrace and profess the religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall have judged to be true” (prop. 15);
“Men, in the exercise of any religion whatsoever, can find the path to eternal salvation and attain eternal life” (prop. 16);
“Protestantism is nothing other than a different form of the same Christian religion, in which, just as in the Catholic Church, one may please God” (prop. 18; cf. ibid., nn. 1715–18).
IV.
1. OF THE STATE
It is well to mention also the form of social-political indifferentism, which, leaving the religious question to individual conscience, affirms the full right of the State to disregard any religion and its duty to grant full freedom and equal treatment to every kind of cult (v. LAICISMO).This doctrine easily leads to State atheism, with the gravest consequences for the Catholic Church and for peoples. State indifferentism will be treated explicitly in connection with the relations between Church and State (v. STATO) and with modern liberties (v. LIBERTÀ). It is recalled here only that social worship is owed to God, both because God is the author and benefactor of civil society and public authority as of each individual, and because society derives the greatest benefits from rendering to God the homage due to Him.